On 23 September 2011, President MahmoudAbbas made a formal application for UN membership for
a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem
as its capital, that is, in the West Bank, including East
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip – the Palestinian territories which
have been under Israeli military occupation since June 1967.

The Palestinian leadership has been under fierce pressure
from the US
and the EU not to apply for UN membership, so it is a minor miracle that the
application has actually been made.The
EU has been doing its best to save the US
from the opprobrium in the Arab world and further afield of having to apply its
veto in the Security Council in order to block the application at the behest of
Israel.

Application certain to
fail

The Security Council, under the sympathetic chairmanship of Lebanon,
is scheduled to meet initially on 28 September 2011 to consider the
application.To be successful, the
application requires

(a) a positive recommendation by the
Security Council to the General Assembly, and

(b) a two-thirds majority in the
General Assembly (that is, two-thirds of the members present and voting,
excluding abstentions).

The application is certain to fall at the first hurdle and
will never reach the General Assembly, but it could be months before that
happens.Also, it’s conceivable that
there will never be a vote in the Security Council, because the US manages to
browbeat Palestinians into withdrawing their application.

In theory, under UN procedures a special 15-member committee
(one from each member state) has to be set up to study the application and
report back within 35 days, but members can stall things for weeks by
requesting more information or by saying they are waiting for instructions from
their capitals.The 193rd UN
member – South Sudan – was admitted in a few
days in July 2011.It’s going to take a
lot longer than that for Palestine
to be refused.

However, if there is a vote, the application will be
rejected.It may fail to get the required
9 votes in the Security Council, but if it succeeds in that the US will veto
it.Since the US
doesn’t want the opprobrium of casting yet another veto on behalf of Israel, you can
be sure that it is applying all the pressure it can to persuade Council members
to abstain. This is unlikely to succeed, since at least 8 of them – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, China,
India, Lebanon, Nigeria,
Russia and South Africa – have full diplomatic relations
with Palestine.
The others are Colombia, France, Gabon,
Germany,
Portugal, UK and US.Of them, only the US is publicly committed to oppose.

Observer rights as a
“non-member state”

One way or another, the Security Council will reject Palestine’s application
for UN membership.Palestinians then
intend to apply for observer rights at the UN as a "non-member state",
a status currently enjoyed only by The Holy See.This requires a simple majority in the
General Assembly, which will be easily achieved.

Around 130 UN member states have recognised a Palestinian
state in the 1967 borders and
granted it full diplomatic relations.Most
if not all of them would vote for full UN membership for Palestine, if they had the opportunity, and
they will certainly vote for this lesser status.

A further 30 or so states, including Ireland, while not going as far as
recognition, have established some form of diplomatic relations with it.Some at least of these will also vote for
this status.

Ireland will almost certainly be one of them.Speaking at the UN General Assembly on 26 September,
Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore
said:

“The
decision of President Abbas to seek Palestine’s membership of the United Nations
is entirely legitimate and understandable. Palestine
has the same right to membership of the United Nations as Ireland or any
other Member of this Organisation. Some would seek to argue that Palestine cannot be
recognised as a State because its borders remain to be agreed. But if the
borders of Palestine are still a matter for
negotiation, then so, by definition, are those of Israel which is rightly a full
member of the UN.

“Membership
of the UN of itself, however, would not change the unstable and unacceptable
situation on the ground. …What
recognition of Palestinian statehood would do, however, would be to give
dignity and support to the Palestinian people who have suffered for too long. …

“The day will come, not too far off, when the General Assembly will be
asked to vote on a proposal to admit Palestine
as a member of this Organisation or perhaps, as an interim step towards the
achievement of that goal, to accord Palestine
non-member observer state status. Provided that the resolution is drafted in
terms that are reasonable and balanced, I expect Ireland to give its full support.”[1]

Whether granting full diplomatic relations to Palestine will follow
remains to be seen.Palestinians have had official representation
in Dublin
since 1993.In January 2011, this was upgraded to the status of a “mission”, which
is one step down from full diplomatic relations and entitles the head of the mission
to be called “ambassador”.

What does it mean in
practice?

What will observer rights at the UN as a “non-member state”
mean in practice for Palestinians?At
the UN itself, there will be very little change.

As far back as 1974, the UN General Assembly recognised the
Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as “the representative of the
Palestinian people” and granted it observer rights at the UN.At present, Palestine has a permanent mission at the UN
with observer rights, but as a liberation movement, not as a state.

Becoming a "non-member
state" recognised by the UN means that Palestinians will continue to have
observer status but now as a state, with a territory – the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip –
recognised by the UN.It will be a firm statement from
the nations of the world that there should be a Palestinian state in the
territories occupied by Israel
since 1967 – and that Israel
should withdraw to allow one to be established.

Being a “non-member state” will allow Palestine to apply for membership of a wide
variety of international bodies.The
International Criminal Court (ICC) has been widely mentioned in this context,
with the possibility that Israelis could be prosecuted by the ICC for actions
in the occupied territories, in particular, for planting Jewish settlers which
is war crime under Article 8.2(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the Court.

An article in the Wall Street Journal on 17 September,
entitled Palestinian Options at UN Lead
to Legal Threat to Israel's Military[2],
identified other possibilities for Palestinians to use membership of
international bodies to harass Israel:

“If the Palestinian Authority
succeeds in winning even an incremental upgrade of its status at the UN, it
could subject Israel's
military to international courts for actions in Palestinian territory – as well
as allow Palestinian control of its Israeli-patrolled air space and national
waters off Gaza.
…

“Such an upgrade could be more than
symbolic, potentially altering the political equation between the Palestinians
and Israel.

“As an observer state, Palestine could
participate in Assembly debates, but couldn't vote, sponsor resolutions or
field candidates for Assembly committees. But it could accede to treaties and
join specialized UN agencies, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization,
the Law of the Sea Treaty, and the International Criminal Court, officials
said. Switzerland
joined the ICAO in 1947 when it was still an observer state before becoming a
UN member in 2002.

“Denis Changnon,
an ICAO spokesman, said the treaty gives members full sovereign rights over air
space, a contentious issue with Israel,
which currently controls the air space above the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians could bring claims of
violation of its air space to the International Court of Justice.

“If the Palestinians accede to the
Law of the Sea Treaty, they would gain legal control of national waters off Gaza—where they are
currently under an Israeli naval blockade. Under the treaty, the Palestinians
could challenge the blockade at the International Court of Justice. They could
also claim rights to an offshore natural-gas field now claimed by Israel.

“Even more
troubling for Israel and the
US
would be Palestinian membership in the International Criminal Court. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, president of the ICC Assembly of State Parties,
said in an interview that a Palestinian observer state could join the ICC and
ask the court to investigate any alleged war crimes and other charges against Israel committed on Palestinian territory after
July 2002 including Israel's
2008-09 assault on the Gaza Strip.”

The Rome Statute came into force on 1 July 2002.Ambassador Wenaweser
asserts that Israeli activity after that date could be subject to investigation
by the ICC.This is doubtful since
Article 11.2 of the Rome Statute states that “if a State becomes a Party to
this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its
jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force
of this Statute for that State”.

That seems to rule out investigation of the events during Israel’s assault on Gaza which began on 27 December 2008.However, it should mean that Israeli activity
after Palestine
becoming a party to the Statute would be open to ICC investigation.

Negotiations mantra

In opposing, and promising to veto, UN membership for Palestine, the US
keeps repeating the mantra that the only way for Palestinians to get a state is
by entering into negotiations with Israel.Addressing the UN General Assembly on 21
September 2011, President Obama said:

“Peace will not come through
statements and resolutions at the United Nations – if it were
that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the
Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the
Israelis and the Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues
that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem. Ultimately, peace depends upon
compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are
over, long after our votes have been tallied.” [3]

There was much more in the same vein. One would never guess from this that
Palestinians are an occupied people living under Israeli military occupation
for over 44 years.That being so, it is
impossible for Palestinians to achieve their objective of ending Israeli
military occupation on their own by negotiation, if Israel doesn’t want to end
it.

And the present Israeli Government certainly has no
intention of ending it, even partially.Prime Minister Netanyahu said so explicitly
during the February 2009 election campaign, as a result of which he became
Prime Minister, telling The Times:

“We will not withdraw
from one inch. Every inch we leave would go to Iran” [4]

Of course, Netanyahu keeps on saying that he is
prepared to enter into negotiations with Palestinians without pre-conditions.
But, in his speech to
the US Congress on 24 May 2011 [5],
he laid down a whole host of them: NO to a return to the 1967 borders, NO to
military withdrawal from the Jordan River (so a future Palestinian state would
be completely encircled by Israeli armed forces), NO to a Palestinian capital
in East Jerusalem, and NO to even a symbolic return of some refugees,
pre-conditions that he knows are unacceptable to Palestinians.So, it can be safely said that his real
policy is “not an inch”.

The
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, as proposed by the US (and
the EU) are equivalent to allowing a thief to negotiate with his victim about
the amount of stolen goods, if any, he is going to give back, while all the
while he keeps his boot on his victim’s throat.Without outside pressure being brought to bear on the Israeli thief, the
Palestinian victim is not going to get any of its stolen goods back.

Of course,
if the Security Council was doing its job, the Israel would be convicted of theft
and sanctions imposed on it, until such times as it returned all the stolen
goods and paid reparations for all the damage it did to them while they were in
its possession.After all, that’s what
was done to Iraq when it
invaded Kuwait.

Cairo and now

Two years
ago, in his Cairo
speech on 4 June 2009, President Obama said:

“… it is … undeniable that the Palestinian
people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.
For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait
in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza,
and neighboring lands for a life of peace and
security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily
humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there
be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is
intolerable. And America
will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity,
opportunity, and a state of their own.” [6]

In stark
contrast, in his speech to the UN General Assembly this year, the word
“occupation” did not pass his lips and he said nothing about the conditions of
life Palestinians have had to endure for decades as a consequence of the
Zionist project, backed by the West.Instead,
listening to the speech, one could have been forgiven for thinking that Israel was the
helpless victim of ongoing Palestinian and other Arab violence and threats of
violence.

Another word that was missing from his speech was
“settlements”.Back in June 2009, he
declared:

“The United States does not accept the
legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to
achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

Two years
later, Israel
is still building settlements and, by so doing, is still violating previous
agreements.But, now he has not a word
of rebuke for Israel
about this matter.

The agreement Obama had in mind in his Cairo
speech was the Road Map [7],
the internationally approved framework for negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinians, which was drawn up by the Quartet in 2003 and endorsed by the
Security Council.Israel accepted
the Road Map in May 2003, when Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister.Under the Road Map, prior to the start of
negotiations, Israel
is supposed to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth,
amongst other things.

Obama has now chosen to forget about Israel’s continuing
violation of a previous agreement.He
has done so, because in September 2009 a few months after his Cairo speech, in
the face of opposition from Prime Minister Netanyahu, he backed down
ignominiously, and, instead of demanding that Israel halt settlement building
prior to negotiations, he set about pressurising the Palestinians to enter into
negotiations without Israel halting settlement building as required by the Road
Map.

Colonise and claim

It was
utterly disgraceful that Obama tried to pressurise
Palestinians into negotiations without a settlement freeze. After all, why
should Palestinians attempt to negotiate a new agreement with Israel when it
is in violation of a previous one?Particularly, when the settlement building in violation of the
previous agreement is the basis on which Israel
claims that ever more Palestinian territory east of the 1967 borders be annexed
to Israel
in a final settlement.

At the White House on 20 May 2011, Netanyahu declared:

“I
think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic
realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous
compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines – because these
lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes
that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place
over the last 44 years.” [8]

There, Netanyahu asserts that by planting Jewish
settlers on occupied territory east of the 1967 border (in violation of Article
49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in violation of Security Council
resolutions 446, 452 and 465 and since 2003 also in violation of the Road Map)
Israel has acquired permanent rights to the territory it has colonised.It follows that the more land Israelcolonises, the more land it acquires permanent rights to.

No state in the world other
than Israel would dare to argue openly in the 21st century that
permanent rights can be acquired to territory not its own by planting settlers
on it.

No negotiations without settlement freeze

In the face of the Israeli
refusal to cease this colonisation and Obama’s
abandonment of any attempt to make them cease, Palestinians have refused to
enter into negotiations with Israel.Instead, they have focused attention on
bringing international pressure to bear on Israel, first by a international
campaign for recognition (which has been very successful amongst the states of
Latin America, because the US no longer holds sway there), and second by taking
this UN initiative.

Negotiations with Israel have not
been ruled out but firm conditions have been placed on entering into them.President Abbas
told the General Assembly on 23 September:

“We adhere to the option of negotiating a lasting solution to the conflict in
accordance with resolutions of international legitimacy. Here, I declare that
the Palestine Liberation Organization is ready to return immediately to the
negotiating table on the basis of the adopted terms of reference based on
international legitimacy and a complete cessation of settlement activities. …

“Negotiations will be meaningless as long as the occupation army on the ground
continues to entrench its occupation, instead of rolling it back, and continues
to change the demography of our country in order to create a new basis on which
to alter the borders.” [9]

The Quartet (US, EU, Russia and the UN Secretary
General) has laboured for months to agree a statement about restarting
negotiations.It finally published one, which
doesn’t mention settlement activity [10],
after Abbas made his speech.Negotiations are not going to resume any time
soon.

Life less comfortable

Life is going to get less comfortable for Israel in the wake of the popular
upheavals in neighbouring Arab states.It has had to suffer the indignity of having its embassy in Cairo stormed and its ambassador and his staff sent
packing and of having to evacuate its embassy in Amman lest the same happen there.And it has had to endure all this quietly,
knowing that its usual bullying tactics in the region would stir up further
popular antagonism in Egypt
and Jordan
and make matters worse.The end result
of the popular upheavals in the Middle East will be regimes that are more
sympathetic to Palestinians in their struggle against Israel.

Against this background, Israel’s
refusal to apologise to Turkey
for the killing of 9 Turkish nationals aboard the Mavi
Marmara last year was crazy.The
inevitable result was the rupture of diplomatic relations with Turkey, formerly its closest ally in the region
and now, as a member of NATO, in a position to disrupt Israel’s
strategic ambition to develop ever closer relations with that organisation.

It was against this background that the Palestinian UN
initiative has taken place.It has drawn
attention to the reality of Palestine
– Israeli military occupation, never ending settlement building, the sham of
negotiations, etc – in a way that nothing else has done in recent years.In addition, it carries with it the
possibility of some constraints being put on Israeli behaviour in the occupied
territories via the International Criminal Court and other international
bodies.

Ireland’s position

In Ireland, over many decades, Fianna
Fail governments, including the last one which was defeated at the polls in
February 2011, have championed the cause of Palestine.There was some concern that its successor, the Fine Gael/Labour
coalition, would be less forthright in its support for Palestine.

This
has proved not to be the case.On the
contrary, in response to the Palestinian UN initiative, the new Foreign
Minister Labour Party leader, Eamon Gilmore, has
dispensed with the usual “balanced” statements on the issue and singled out Israel’s military occupation and colonisation of
Palestinian territories as the root of the problem.

Here’s
what he said in answer to a question in DáilÉireann on 13 July 2011:

“The continuing Israeli
military occupation of the Palestinian territories is at the heart of the
unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. The issues which have been critical for
Israel for most of its history – the existence of the state of Israel and its
right to live in peace and security – have for many years been accepted in
principle by most Arab and Palestinian opinion. It is the continuing
occupation, and the creation and growth of illegal settlements on the occupied
lands, which are now the major obstacles to peace.” [11]

No Irish foreign minister has gone that far before.

Needless to say, he goes on to call for the
resumption of negotiations, as if Israel was going to abandon its
military occupation and colonisation voluntarily.It is obvious that negotiations are a
pointless exercise without a very big stick being applied to Israel by
outside powers.